From: Kevin Daudt <me@ikke.info>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] rev-list: refuse --first-parent combined with --bisect
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:33:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150316163306.GB11832@vps892.directvps.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsidb5m2r.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 01:13:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kevin Daudt <me@ikke.info> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 04:12:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
>
> Step back and think why "git bisect --first-parent" is sometimes
> desired in the first place.
>
> It is because in the regular bisection, you will almost always end
> up on a commit that is _not_ on the first-parent chain and asked to
> check that commit at a random place on a side branch in the first
> place. And you mark such a commit as "bad".
>
> The thing is, traversing from that "bad" commit that is almost
> always is on a side branch, following the first-parent chain, will
> not be a useful history that "leaves out any merged in branches".
>
> When "git bisect --first-parent" feature gets implemented, "do not
> use --first-parent with --bisect" limitation has to be lifted
> anyway, but until then, not allowing "--first-parent --bisect" for
> "rev-list" but allowing it for "log" does not buy our users much.
> The output does not give us a nice "show me which merges on the
> trunk may have caused the breakage to be examined with the remainder
> of this bisect session".
>
> So, yes, there is a use case for "log --bisect --first-parent", once
> there is a working "bisect --first-parent", but not until then, the
> command is not useful, I would think.
Thank you for you explanation. My confusion came from incorrectly
assuming refs/bisect/bad and refs/bisect/good-* were pointing to the
initially specified good and bad commits, in which case the combination
does make sense.
I was looking in the manpages for the meaning of the bisect refs, but
could only find something about refs/bisect/bad:
git-bisect(1):
> Eventually there will be no more revisions left to bisect, and you
> will have been left with the first bad kernel revision in
> "refs/bisect/bad
So this ref changes to the bad commit.
For refs/bisect/good-*, I could only find an example snippet:
> GOOD=$(git for-each-ref "--format=%(objectname)" refs/bisect/good-*)
But it's not really clear what * might be expanded to, nor what they
mean. I guess this could use some clarrification in the documentation.
Knowing this, I agree that the combination log --bisect --first-parent
doesn't make sense either.
I will send in a new patch.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-16 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-03 14:19 [BUG] Segfault with rev-list --bisect Troy Moure
2015-03-04 5:33 ` Jeff King
2015-03-04 23:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-05 2:15 ` Troy Moure
2015-03-07 21:31 ` [PATCH] rev-list: refuse --first-parent combined with --bisect Kevin Daudt
2015-03-07 23:13 ` Kevin Daudt
2015-03-08 8:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-08 14:18 ` [PATCH v2] " Kevin Daudt
2015-03-08 15:02 ` [PATCH v3] " Kevin Daudt
2015-03-08 15:03 ` Kevin Daudt
2015-03-08 21:58 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-03-09 11:57 ` Kevin Daudt
2015-03-09 20:56 ` [PATCH v4] " Kevin Daudt
2015-03-10 22:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-10 22:55 ` Kevin Daudt
2015-03-10 23:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-11 18:45 ` Kevin Daudt
2015-03-11 20:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-16 16:33 ` Kevin Daudt [this message]
2015-03-16 18:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-16 20:25 ` Philip Oakley
2015-03-16 21:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-17 16:09 ` Christian Couder
2015-03-17 18:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-17 19:49 ` Christian Couder
2015-03-17 20:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-18 10:36 ` Christian Couder
2015-03-19 23:51 ` Philip Oakley
2015-03-20 13:02 ` Scott Schmit
2015-03-19 22:14 ` [PATCH v5] " Kevin Daudt
2015-03-19 22:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-21 22:01 ` Kevin Daudt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150316163306.GB11832@vps892.directvps.nl \
--to=me@ikke.info \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).